Martin: perhaps the answer is to take VixTD's line, with the caveat that you tell the offender away from the table that everything you say about your likely ruling on any hypothetical call is subject to it being clear when you get back to the table that the offender's partner's understanding of the replacement call is the same as the offender's.
If the offender is not prepared to take that risk then he may be better guessing a contract, and I've no objection to the TD telling the offender that. (I've always added a rider to rulings to the effect that if you make a call which will bar partner, then you would be advised to guess a final contract, and I've seen plenty of very good directors do the same).
It is possible that there would be a director's error in these rulings: for instance, if North did not have Law 27B explained but instead the TD gave the impression that North had to bid systemically. If there was a director's error then a subsequent adjustment could be a split score.
@Abbeybear said:
Martin: perhaps the answer is to take VixTD's line, with the caveat that you tell the offender away from the table that everything you say about your likely ruling on any hypothetical call is subject to it being clear when you get back to the table that the offender's partner's understanding of the replacement call is the same as the offender's.
If the offender is not prepared to take that risk then he may be better guessing a contract, and I've no objection to the TD telling the offender that. (I've always added a rider to rulings to the effect that if you make a call which will bar partner, then you would be advised to guess a final contract, and I've seen plenty of very good directors do the same).
If you tell the offender that your (tentative?) ruling is subject to partner's understanding of the replacement call being the same and the offender makes the replacement call as agreed with you, how would you go about verifying that the partner's understanding was the same as the offender's? Were you thinking of taking the partner away from the table and asking him this before deciding whether you would bar him or not?
@Martin said:
...
Is it allowed for a player to lie about their hand, in order to keep the auction open? Such as:
Pass out of turn, not accepted then partner deals: 1H - pass - 1NT?
Normally 6-9, denying H and S holdings... however, knowing that 1S would bar partner from bidding they bid 1NT even with 5 spades. Is their BOOT authorised or unauthorised information? This could lead to partnerships agreeing that making any limited NT bid in this situation is forcing, or semi-forcing, essentially devising a system to field their error.
The short answer is YES. The long answer is YES but.....
1) there must be no prior agreement that the partnership will do this 40C1 in part
2) Partner must not try and field the psych
Law 40Ci
A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner
has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)
Note that since partner is not allowed to know the meaning of a withdrawn call (or even what the call actually was in many cases), they can have no agreement that any specific replacement call will be comparable. e.g. partner bids 1NT (12-14) out of turn, when it gets to him you can't have an agreement that a double would show 12-14 points (or the same as the original COOT).
In your example (pass out of turn replaced by a limit call), the fact that the player is hiding 5 spades is irrelevant. Even if as a result the offending side reach a better contract, solely due to the hiding of the 5 spades, there would be no adjustment (e.g. 3NT makes and 4 Spades goes off on a bad break). Compare and contrast with a case when the replacement call is deemed to be comparable (similar), but it so happens that the minor differences enable the side to reach a better contract.
The laws, however, no longer seem to give an RA the right to ban a partnership from amending their system based on their own irregularity. Thus if you know partner will have to pass next turn due to an irregularity, it is quite in order to bid e.g. 4 Hearts as the final contract even though conventionally it is a transfer to Spades.
So the question is: does a player have the right to know WHAT irregularity partner committed. Partner is entitled to know the consequences of their actions before they replace the call, of course.
@Martin said:
Normally 6-9, denying H and S holdings... however, knowing that 1S would bar partner from bidding they bid 1NT even with 5 spades. Is their BOOT authorised or unauthorised information? This could lead to partnerships agreeing that making any limited NT bid in this situation is forcing, or semi-forcing, essentially devising a system to field their error.
I don’t think it is clear whether the law allows this or not. L40 allows inter alia the local authority to allow or forbid changes in agreements based on opponent’s infractions but interestingly enough does not say it when it is partner's infractions. Certainly the EBU could forbid it but whether they can allow it ....
Example. You pass out of turn. Partner opens 1D, pass, you bid 1H, partner alerts, and says that after a call out of turn you play change of suit as non-forcing. This is not based on the pass - which is unauthorised - but on the TD's ruling, which is surely authorised?
@Abbeybear said:
Martin: perhaps the answer is to take VixTD's line, with the caveat that you tell the offender away from the table that everything you say about your likely ruling on any hypothetical call is subject to it being clear when you get back to the table that the offender's partner's understanding of the replacement call is the same as the offender's.
If the offender is not prepared to take that risk then he may be better guessing a contract, and I've no objection to the TD telling the offender that. (I've always added a rider to rulings to the effect that if you make a call which will bar partner, then you would be advised to guess a final contract, and I've seen plenty of very good directors do the same).
If you tell the offender that your (tentative?) ruling is subject to partner's understanding of the replacement call being the same and the offender makes the replacement call as agreed with you, how would you go about verifying that the partner's understanding was the same as the offender's? Were you thinking of taking the partner away from the table and asking him this before deciding whether you would bar him or not?
I should have added 'except when there is a system card that clearly shows this to be the case'.
@Martin said: @SDN - that's an interesting question... In this instance, perhaps north thinks that 2H is not comparable and so bids it as the final guess at the contract. However, the director may then say, that's fine, no restrictions on bidding :)
Is it allowed for a player to lie about their hand, in order to keep the auction open? Such as:
Pass out of turn, not accepted then partner deals: 1H - pass - 1NT?
Normally 6-9, denying H and S holdings... however, knowing that 1S would bar partner from bidding they bid 1NT even with 5 spades. Is their BOOT authorised or unauthorised information? This could lead to partnerships agreeing that making any limited NT bid in this situation is forcing, or semi-forcing, essentially devising a system to field their error.
Examples in videos from ACBL, plus other information I have seen from individuals tied in some way to the WBFLC, shows that the UI law prevents offender's partner (dealer) from any "funny business" to make it easier for offender to make a comparable call when it is his turn.
However, the offender IS allowed some "funny business" to keep his call comparable, such as your example of bidding 1NT with a major. Even 2NT natural and passable holding TWO 4-card majors would be comparable and would be allowed. Additionally, offender's partner later can adjust his bidding to account for this possibility. For example, in your 1H - pass - 1NT example, opening bidder might now bid a 2S reverse (instead of 2NT or 3NT) just in case responder (offender) bypassed a spade suit to keep his call (1NT) comparable.
I will be extremely surprised if the WBFLC gives examples or direct statements saying an offender after a call out of rotation would ever be required to make his next call not knowing if his partner will be required to pass on the next round.
Not only would be non-sensical for offender to need to make his call not knowing how it will be ruled, but it goes against the desire of attempting to get a "real bridge result".
Is this an appropriate item to be included in the White Book as guidance for TDs? Whether they may give 'advance rulings' on comparable calls to offenders?
It will be no doubt, once we get clarification as to recommended procedure. IMHO on the basis of equity we should allow a player to know whether his partner will be silenced by a call he makes, since this is a judgement (The TD's) ruling.
We know that partner cannot choose to make a call specifically to allow the offender to be able to make a comparable call. However subsequent calls, to cater for the possibilty that partner has had to twist his hand, are presumably allowed as a consequence of Law 23B (subject to Law 23C).
I also can see nowhere in the laws that forbid a partnership to change their system as a result of one of them making a COOT or IB - which is a bit worrying - unless we get a bit metaphysical and don't allow a player to know that his partner has made a COOT/ IB in the first place. (16C1 does say "arising from..." which doesn't help)
@bluejak said:
L40B2A1 gives the right to the Regulating Authority to forbid such a change.
I might beg to differ - a SPU is defined as
(b) A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.
I suspect that providing the partnership keep matters simple, it won't be definred as as SPU.
@weejonnie said:
I suspect that providing the partnership keep matters simple, it won't be definred as as SPU.
EBU White Book says:
Any agreement that is subject to a regulation is deemed to be a special partnership agreement.
!
True - but I can't spot anywhere where the EBU specifically prevents it. (Unless it derives specifically from all information arising from a withdrawn call is UI to the NOS)
It's been a while - but: supposing you know your partner is going to be silenced for one round because you can't make a comparable call and as such e.g. you bid 4 Hearts (which would normally be a transfer to Spades) instead of 4 Diamonds(Transfer to hearts), or whatever. However the auction is kept alive. Is your partner at his next turn to call i.e. the round AFTER the forced pass, allowed to know you actually showed Hearts with your call, not spades? If so then you seem to have a SPU.
@weejonnie said:
It's been a while - but: supposing you know your partner is going to be silenced for one round because you can't make a comparable call and as such e.g. you bid 4 Hearts (which would normally be a transfer to Spades) instead of 4 Diamonds(Transfer to hearts), or whatever. However the auction is kept alive. Is your partner at his next turn to call i.e. the round AFTER the forced pass, allowed to know you actually showed Hearts with your call, not spades? If so then you seem to have a SPU.
Whether the EBU can ban this is irrelevant because they won’t. It is just bridge.
Comments
Martin: perhaps the answer is to take VixTD's line, with the caveat that you tell the offender away from the table that everything you say about your likely ruling on any hypothetical call is subject to it being clear when you get back to the table that the offender's partner's understanding of the replacement call is the same as the offender's.
If the offender is not prepared to take that risk then he may be better guessing a contract, and I've no objection to the TD telling the offender that. (I've always added a rider to rulings to the effect that if you make a call which will bar partner, then you would be advised to guess a final contract, and I've seen plenty of very good directors do the same).
It is possible that there would be a director's error in these rulings: for instance, if North did not have Law 27B explained but instead the TD gave the impression that North had to bid systemically. If there was a director's error then a subsequent adjustment could be a split score.
If you tell the offender that your (tentative?) ruling is subject to partner's understanding of the replacement call being the same and the offender makes the replacement call as agreed with you, how would you go about verifying that the partner's understanding was the same as the offender's? Were you thinking of taking the partner away from the table and asking him this before deciding whether you would bar him or not?
The short answer is YES. The long answer is YES but.....
1) there must be no prior agreement that the partnership will do this 40C1 in part
2) Partner must not try and field the psych
Law 40Ci
has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)
Note that since partner is not allowed to know the meaning of a withdrawn call (or even what the call actually was in many cases), they can have no agreement that any specific replacement call will be comparable. e.g. partner bids 1NT (12-14) out of turn, when it gets to him you can't have an agreement that a double would show 12-14 points (or the same as the original COOT).
In your example (pass out of turn replaced by a limit call), the fact that the player is hiding 5 spades is irrelevant. Even if as a result the offending side reach a better contract, solely due to the hiding of the 5 spades, there would be no adjustment (e.g. 3NT makes and 4 Spades goes off on a bad break). Compare and contrast with a case when the replacement call is deemed to be comparable (similar), but it so happens that the minor differences enable the side to reach a better contract.
The laws, however, no longer seem to give an RA the right to ban a partnership from amending their system based on their own irregularity. Thus if you know partner will have to pass next turn due to an irregularity, it is quite in order to bid e.g. 4 Hearts as the final contract even though conventionally it is a transfer to Spades.
So the question is: does a player have the right to know WHAT irregularity partner committed. Partner is entitled to know the consequences of their actions before they replace the call, of course.
I don’t think it is clear whether the law allows this or not. L40 allows inter alia the local authority to allow or forbid changes in agreements based on opponent’s infractions but interestingly enough does not say it when it is partner's infractions. Certainly the EBU could forbid it but whether they can allow it ....
Example. You pass out of turn. Partner opens 1D, pass, you bid 1H, partner alerts, and says that after a call out of turn you play change of suit as non-forcing. This is not based on the pass - which is unauthorised - but on the TD's ruling, which is surely authorised?
I should have added 'except when there is a system card that clearly shows this to be the case'.
Examples in videos from ACBL, plus other information I have seen from individuals tied in some way to the WBFLC, shows that the UI law prevents offender's partner (dealer) from any "funny business" to make it easier for offender to make a comparable call when it is his turn.
However, the offender IS allowed some "funny business" to keep his call comparable, such as your example of bidding 1NT with a major. Even 2NT natural and passable holding TWO 4-card majors would be comparable and would be allowed. Additionally, offender's partner later can adjust his bidding to account for this possibility. For example, in your 1H - pass - 1NT example, opening bidder might now bid a 2S reverse (instead of 2NT or 3NT) just in case responder (offender) bypassed a spade suit to keep his call (1NT) comparable.
I will be extremely surprised if the WBFLC gives examples or direct statements saying an offender after a call out of rotation would ever be required to make his next call not knowing if his partner will be required to pass on the next round.
Not only would be non-sensical for offender to need to make his call not knowing how it will be ruled, but it goes against the desire of attempting to get a "real bridge result".
Is this an appropriate item to be included in the White Book as guidance for TDs? Whether they may give 'advance rulings' on comparable calls to offenders?
It will be no doubt, once we get clarification as to recommended procedure. IMHO on the basis of equity we should allow a player to know whether his partner will be silenced by a call he makes, since this is a judgement (The TD's) ruling.
We know that partner cannot choose to make a call specifically to allow the offender to be able to make a comparable call. However subsequent calls, to cater for the possibilty that partner has had to twist his hand, are presumably allowed as a consequence of Law 23B (subject to Law 23C).
I also can see nowhere in the laws that forbid a partnership to change their system as a result of one of them making a COOT or IB - which is a bit worrying - unless we get a bit metaphysical and don't allow a player to know that his partner has made a COOT/ IB in the first place. (16C1 does say "arising from..." which doesn't help)
L40B2A1 gives the right to the Regulating Authority to forbid such a change.
I might beg to differ - a SPU is defined as
(b) A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.
I suspect that providing the partnership keep matters simple, it won't be definred as as SPU.
EBU White Book says:
!
True - but I can't spot anywhere where the EBU specifically prevents it. (Unless it derives specifically from all information arising from a withdrawn call is UI to the NOS)
It's been a while - but: supposing you know your partner is going to be silenced for one round because you can't make a comparable call and as such e.g. you bid 4 Hearts (which would normally be a transfer to Spades) instead of 4 Diamonds(Transfer to hearts), or whatever. However the auction is kept alive. Is your partner at his next turn to call i.e. the round AFTER the forced pass, allowed to know you actually showed Hearts with your call, not spades? If so then you seem to have a SPU.
Whether the EBU can ban this is irrelevant because they won’t. It is just bridge.